Attitudes of pre-school and primary school pre-service teachers towards inclusive education

For Peer Review O

nly

Attitudes of pre-school and primary school pre-service

teachers towards inclusive education

Journal: Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education

Manuscript ID: CAPJ-2012-0227.R2

Manuscript Type: Original Paper

Keywords: inclusion, pre-service teachers, inclusive education, education policy,

teacher training

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/capj Email: [email protected]

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education

For Peer Review O

nly

Attitudes of pre-school and primary school pre-service teachers towards inclusive education

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are important as they have the primary

responsibility of implementing inclusive education. Attitudes at the beginning of

teaching careers are likely to predict future attitudes. Some studies show a drop in

attitudes after leaving university education. Using the Teachers' Attitudes

Towards Inclusion (Amended) questionnaire, 465 pre-service teachers (located in

Victoria, Australia) from primary school and pre-school streams were examined

to determine the effect of a number of independent factors on Total Inclusion

Score; a measure of attitudes towards inclusion. Two-way ANOVAs revealed

module and year of study to be significant factors. A multiple regression showed

the factors combined accounted for 10% of the variance in Total Inclusion Score.

Participants that had studied a module on inclusive education or were in later

years of study were more positive towards inclusive education based on Total

Inclusion Score from the questionnaire. No significant differences for Total

Inclusion Score were found between pre-service teachers that study primary

school teaching or pre-school teaching. It is concluded that studying a module on

inclusive education is a particularly important factor in the development of pre-

service teacher attitudes towards inclusion.

Keywords: inclusion; pre-service teachers; inclusive education; primary school;

pre-school; students with disabilities; education policy; teacher training

Introduction

Providing education to those with special needs has increasingly become an issue of

moral necessity over the last few decades (Croll & Moses, 2000). Due to increasing

demands for schools to include those with special needs, many nations and non-state

organisations, such as the United Nations, have begun to implement policies that assist

in the education of children with diverse needs (Forlin, 2006). Of particular interest is

how inclusive education could be best implemented. This has often involved

investigation of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion as they are frequently the primary

implementers of educational policy change (Boyle, 2012; Subban & Sharma, 2006).

Page 1 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Forbes (2007) argues that despite the push for inclusion there has been a distinct lack of

appropriate planning by educational authorities. Furthermore Boyle, Topping, Jindal-

Snape, & Norwich (2012) suggest that there has been a limited understanding of the

definition of inclusion. Does inclusion only relate to students with physical and mental

disabilities, or is it more encompassing, relating to the diversity of all students? Topping

(2012) discusses the conceptualisation of inclusion at length and concluded at this time

that "inclusion has widened, and it is now taken to mean at least all children achieving

and participating despite challenges stemming from disability, poverty, social class,

race, religion, linguistic and cultural heritage, gender, and so on" (p. 17). Overall, it is

believed that in Australia, while its implementation varies, inclusive schooling is an

idea that garners support in all Australian educational authorities (Conway, 2012). This

is evidenced with the 2005 addition to the Disability Discrimination Act (1992), the

Disability Standards for Schools (2005) amendment which sought to ensure that

students with disabilities received appropriate access to education provision and that

they were not discriminated against.

The following article discusses the international development of inclusive education

and its relation to teachers attitudes, followed by a study within the state of Victoria,

Australia, that centres on the attitudes of teachers in training (i.e. pre-service teachers)

and their attitudes towards and understanding of inclusive education.

Historical Development of Inclusive Education

During the early 20th century children with special education needs were often educated

in special schools (Boyle, Scriven, Durning, & Downes, 2011) , but the idea of

educating these children in mainstream schools soon became popular (Zigmond, Kloo,

& Volonino, 2009). In the 1970s Australia began investigating political support for

Page 2 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

inclusive education (Interim Commitee for the Australian Schools Commission, 1973)

as well as eventually developing policy that made it illegal for schools to deny

enrolment on the grounds of disability (Commonwealth Government, 1992, 2010).

Other nations such as the UK, USA and Italy were also developing inclusive policy at

this time (Lauchlan & Fadda, 2012; Michaud & Scruggs, 2012). For example Italy

adopted Law 517 in 1977 leading to the closure of all "special schools", an initiative

which has been particularly successful in adapting the education system towards an

inclusive education system (Lauchlan & Fadda, 2012). The shift toward inclusive

education was also reflected in the UK during the 1970s with the Warnock Report

(Warnock, 1978), which was the precursor to UK legislation (The National Archives,

1980), and an instrumental move towards a more inclusive approach to education in that

country.

Perhaps the most important international indicator of commitment to inclusive

education was the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). This international meeting

of education officials, representatives and policy makers had the goal of coming to an

agreement on how to best educate children with special education needs in 'regular'

schools. The result was an accord that inclusive education was the ethical minimum

required by education institutions. By focusing on the underlying needs of each child

rather than the educational needs of all children, educational institutions could be least

wasteful with their resources and most effective in their teaching of children. Wider

international legislation such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities (UNCRPD) has ensured that self-determination and quality of life for

all people with additional support needs has become a universal right (Karr, 2011), not

just in the education sphere.

Page 3 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

The Importance of Teachers in Inclusive Education

Policy development in inclusive education has been shown to be an important factor in

the successful implementation of inclusive education (Sharma, Ee, & Desai, 2003). As

policy and opinion shifts towards a higher expectation of inclusion in educational

institutions, schools are expected to receive more funding, have a wider focus on

learning rather than achievement, and create diversity in the curriculum (Wu &

Komesaroff, 2007). Due to the increased pressures of inclusive education policy,

teachers are increasingly feeling the demands to implement changes in the classroom

(Boyle, 2007; Boyle, 2012). Added onto these policy and societal pressures is the

requirement of teachers to meet certain performance goals, leading many schools to

reconsider the implications of including children with "special education needs" (Peters,

Johnstone, & Ferguson, 2005). Pearson, Lo, Chui and Wong (2003) point out that

competition in examinations, an inflexible curriculum and poor ratio of students to

teachers are contrary to the ideas underlying the philosophy of inclusive education. The

importance of teachers in successful implementation of inclusion is evident since

teachers are the people charged with implementing and facilitating inclusive practice

with all children in a mainstream setting (Boyle, Jindal-Snape, Topping, & Norwich,

2012).

Indeed, it is argued that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education are the

main factor in how successfully educators include a diverse range of children into the

classroom (Forlin, Keen, & Barrett, 2008; Forlin & Sin, 2010; Subban & Sharma,

2006). Three types of variables have been found to influence teachers' attitudes

(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). These variables are child-related, teacher-related and the

educational-environment. It is these teacher-related variables that this article turns its

focus to.

Page 4 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Teacher-Related Variables

While research has been conducted on the relationship between attitudes towards

inclusion and the type and severity of a child's disability (i.e. child-related variables,

Lifshitz, Glaubman, & Issawi, 2004), or the availability of specialist support (i.e.

educational-environment related variables, Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007),

teacher-related variables are of particular importance due to the important roles of

teachers. Often research has considered the impact of factors such as age, gender,

teaching experience, grade level taught, experience with children with special education

needs, level of training, and contact with family or friends with perceived special needs

(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).

Gender

Some studies on pre-service teachers have found that females are more positive towards

inclusion than males (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Burge, Ouellette-Kuntz,

Hutchinson, & Box, 2000), while others have found no significant differences

(Loreman, Forlin, & Sharma, 2007; Sharma, et al., 2003). The purported evidence for

females being more positive towards inclusion is that they are more 'caring' teachers

(Boyle, Topping, & Jindal-Snape, 2013).

Age

Age has often been found to be a non-significant factor in measurement of attitudes

towards inclusion (Loreman, et al., 2007). For those studies that have found age to be

important, it is often those student teachers or in-service teachers that are youngest that

are most positive (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).

Page 5 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Specialism.

Specialism refers to the subject area that a teacher may focus on. In primary school

students are exposed to specialist curriculum areas including, but not limited to,

physical education, art and music. Given this, are there differences between those that

study specialisms (i.e. primary stream) and those that don't (i.e. pre-school stream)?

Avramidis et al. (2000) argue that those that study science courses are more focused on

academic performance and thus less positive towards inclusion, whereas those that

study humanities are more positive.

Teaching experience and year of study

Inconsistencies have also arisen in the inclusive education literature over the effect of

teaching experience. Hastings and Oakford (2003) and Ross-Hill (2009) showed no

significant differences for attitudes towards inclusion regardless of previous experience.

Contrary to this, Boyle, et al. (2013) and de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2010) found that

teachers who had just left university were significantly more positive than those with

further teaching experience. Other research has found that pre-service teachers are more

positive towards inclusion in their final year of study than their first year of study (Sosu,

Mtika, & Colucci-Gray, 2010).

Perceived experience with people with special educational needs

Subban and Sharma (2006) found that teachers with close friends with a disability were

more confident in regards to implementing inclusive education. This confidence is

important in teachers as it often relates to willingness to include a diverse range of

children and students with disabilities (Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2007; Sharma,

Moore, & Sonawane, 2009). Contact with not only family members, but any close

contact with a person with a disability leads to more positive attitudes towards inclusion

Page 6 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

(Burge, et al., 2000; Loreman, et al., 2007).

Module in special education or inclusion

Carroll et al. (2003) found no significant impact of a special education course on the

level of comfort that teachers felt when dealing with those with disabilities. On the other

hand Van Reusen et al. (2000) and Forlin, Loreman, Sharma and Earle (2009) found

that those that were more positive towards inclusion generally had higher levels of

training in special education. Studies that have developed or analysed modules on

special education and inclusive education have found that they improved attitudes

towards inclusion (Shade & Stewart, 2001; Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008;

Spandagou, Evans, & Little, 2008; Subban & Sharma, 2006). Some have argued that for

inclusive education to be successful, units on special education must be compulsory as

well as some form of special education practicum be included in teacher training

(Forbes, 2007). Sharma et al. (2009) found that those studying postgraduate degrees had

the most positive attitudes towards inclusion as they often had completed units in

special education or inclusion.

Stream of enrolment

Pre-service teachers are most often enrolled in either an early childhood stream (pre-

school), primary stream or secondary stream. Ross-Hill (2009) found that secondary

school teachers were significantly less positive towards inclusion than those that taught

preschool and primary school. However, no significant differences were found between

those that taught primary and pre-school with pre-school teachers being the most

positive. One view is that due to a focus on curriculum, assessment and subject matter,

inclusion in secondary schools has had less opportunity to succeed (Pearce, 2009).

Given these findings, it would be expected that both pre-school and primary school

Page 7 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

teachers would have more positive attitudes than high school teachers, but there would

be no significant differences between pre-school and primary school teachers.

Alternatively, some research has shown high school teachers to be more positive than

primary school teachers (McCormack & O’ Flaherty, 2010). It is obvious that these

inconsistencies make understanding the impact of stream on inclusive attitudes difficult,

and therefore a deeper understanding of pre-school and primary school teacher attitudes

is important.

Aim

Due to the inconsistencies in much of the research that investigates the impact of

teacher-variables’ on attitudes towards inclusion (Avramidis, et al., 2000), this study

aims to investigate factors that have received less attention as well as to attempt to

clarify the impact of those factors that have received more focus vis-à-vis research

studies but have resulted in inconsistencies. By using a large sample of pre-service

teachers it will be possible to determine the impact of many of the factors discussed

above. This study will be focusing on those participants enrolled in pre-school

and primary streams of teaching (c.f. related studies focussing specifically on primary

(Varcoe & Boyle, 2013) and secondary pre-service teaching (Costello & Boyle, 2013)).

This will provide a unique sample to test the differences in attitudes towards inclusion

between pre and primary pre-service teachers. This study will also analyse the impact

factors such as age, gender, previous teaching experience, regular contact with people

with disabilities, and having completed a module on inclusive education, have on

attitudes towards inclusion.

Page 8 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from the population of pre-service teachers at four university

campuses in the Australian state of Victoria. Attempts were made to recruit participants

across various year levels and streams. In total, 465 participants were recruited. This

was made up of 63 males (M = 24.29 years old, SD = 7.59 years) and 402 females (M =

24.34 years old, SD = 7.57 years). The age range for the sample was 17 to 53. Table 1,

shows the information gathered and summarises frequencies and percentages of the

participants by stream of enrolment.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

Materials

Teachers' Attitudes Towards Inclusion Scale Adjusted

The Teachers' Attitudes Towards Inclusion Scale Adjusted (TAISA; Appendix A)

comprises 21 items that measure pre-service teacher attitudes towards inclusion. This

survey instrument was adjusted from the original Teachers' Attitudes Towards Inclusion

Scale (TAIS) detailed in Boyle, Topping and Jindal-Snape (2013). In order to adjust the

scale to examine pre-service teacher attitudes rather than in-service teacher attitudes all

questions were replaced, removed or altered to be relevant to pre-service teaching.

Therefore while the TAIS has 27 items, the TAISA has 21 items. As an example,

participants are asked if they agree or disagree with the following statement: "I feel

competent to work with students who have varying levels of difficulties." The original

scale was found to be reliable with a Cronbach's Alpha of .889 (Boyle, et al., 2013). For

the sample of 465 participants the adjusted scale was found to have acceptable

Page 9 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

reliability with a Cronbach's Alpha of .74 (Cronbach, 1951).

At the end of the attitude scale of the TAISA participants were asked to provide

their own definition of 'inclusion'. These definitions were then coded by the author and

one other researcher based on predefined groupings. Definitions were split into five

categories: 0 = no answer, 1 = did not define integration or inclusion, 2 = defined

integration, 3 = basic definition of inclusion, and 4 = advanced definition of inclusion.

Using the Kappa Measure of Agreement (Pallant, 2011) inter-rater reliability between

the researchers classification of definition was found to be .89. Any level of agreement

above .8 is 'very good' (Peat, 2001). Definitions were judged by two researchers against

the following definition by Zoniou-Sideri and Vlachou (2006):

Inclusion and inclusive education are concerned with the quest for equity,

social justice, participation, and the removal of all forms of exclusionary

assumptions and practices. It is based on a positive view of difference and

has at its heart the principle that all pupils, including those who are

'different', are considered to be valued and respected members of the school

community. (p. 379)

To qualify as advanced the definition needed to identify factors such as modifying

curriculum to suit needs of students, valuing all students, ideas about equality and

justice, and avoiding limiting the definition to individual groups such as those that have

physical disabilities. A definition was classified as basic if it failed to mention processes

such as changes in the education environment, or make no mention of the values and

inclusionary practices that underlie the practice of inclusion. Finally definitions were be

classified as integration if it did not identify the need of modifying the environment to

the child or limited inclusion to a specific group of children rather than all children. If

the definition discussed something that was neither classifiable as inclusion or

Page 10 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

integration then it was to be scored as a 'one' and if no definition was given at all it was

coded as a 'zero'.

Exploratory principle components analysis

In order to draw further information from the TAISA, the 21 items in the scale were

subjected to principle components analysis (PCA). The initial PCA found five

components with eigenvalues exceeding one, one being the suggested minimum (Field,

2009). Using software for calculating Parallel Analysis (Watkins, 2000) and the scree

plot (Catell, 1966) it was determined that three components were to be retained.

Varimax rotation was used in this PCA as it is the most frequently used orthogonal

rotation (Pallant, 2011). This three component solution explained a cumulative variance

of 40.27%. By looking at the rotated component matrix it is possible to see that four

items loaded onto two components, suggesting that Thurstone's (1947) simple structure

was not entirely achieved. However as there was no cross loadings between component

two and component three they appear to be the most unique.

By analysing the items that loaded on each of the components (Pallant, 2011) it is

possible to title these components Positive Affect (PA), Training and Perceived

Competence (TAPC) and Negative Affect (NA). PA consists of many statements that

are framed in a positive, general and light manner relating to inclusion. Statements in

the NA component revolve around the negative results of inclusive education. Finally,

TAPC consisted of statements that related to how confident participants are in teaching

a diverse range of students. Reliabilities for each component were found to be internally

consistent.

Page 11 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Procedure

Pre-service teachers were recruited in education related lectures and tutorials.

Participants had the opportunity to take part in a draw for a $100 gift voucher. The

Statistical Package for Social Scientists, version 17 (SPSS V17) was used for data input

and analysis. The data was cleaned, checked for accuracy and missing data was attended

to by excluding cases pairwise (Pallant, 2011). Some items, particularly those on the

NA component, were reverse scored.

Results

A number of analyses were conducted using the four campuses under study on 'Total

Inclusion Score' and the three components found in the factor analysis: Positive Affect

(PA), Training and Perceived Competence (TAPC) and Negative Affect (NA).

Stream and other Independent Variables on Total Inclusion Score

A number of two-way ANOVAs were calculated for Total Inclusion Score in order to

determine the significance of stream (i.e. pre-school and primary) in combination with

the other demographic independent variables. The results of these analyses are shown in

Table 2. As pre-school pre-service teachers were only found at one of the four campuses

under study, there were insufficient numbers for an interaction to be calculated. Age

was grouped into two groups, '23 and below' and '24 and above'.

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

As can be seen from Table 2, stream was non-significant for all analyses. There

was a significant main effect of year of study, F(4,431) = 3.627, p < .05, age, F(1,437)

= 6.639, p < .05, and module, F(1,438) = 20.830, p < .05. An interaction was also found

Page 12 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

between year of study and stream of study, F(4,431) = 5.501, p < .05. A more stringent

significance level was set (.0063) due to the number of tests completed using a

Bonferroni adjustment (Pallant, 2011). Only "age" became non-significant after this

adjustment. Table 3, displays the mean Total Inclusion Score of students that have and

have not studied a module on inclusive education across the pre and primary streams.

Table 4, shows the means for pre and primary school pre-service teachers across years

of study on Total Inclusion Score. Table 5 shows the post-hoc analysis for differences in

Total Inclusion Score based on year of study.

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

INSERT TABLE 4 HERE

INSERT TABLE 5 HERE

Module and Year of Study on Components

As 'module' and 'year of study' were found to be significant main effects on Total

Inclusion Score, further investigation was conducted to determine their effect on the

component scores. Table 6 shows that module remained important with a significant

main effect on PA, TAPC and NA, F(1,443) = 13.572, p < .05, F(1,451) = 8.534, p <

.05, and F(1,444) = 11.583, p < .05, respectively. Table 7 shows a significant main

effect for year of study on PA, F(4,436) = 6.686, p < .05, and an interaction effect

between stream and year of study, F(4,436) = 2.653, p < .05. An interaction was also

found on TAPC, F(4,444) = 4.527, p < .05. Lastly year of study had a main effect on

NA, F(4,437) = 3.480, p < .05, as did the interaction, F(4,437) = 3.069, p < .05. As with

previous analyses a Bonferroni adjustment was made and a new p value of .0083 was

Page 13 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

set. All significant effects remained except for the interaction between stream and year

of study on PA and NA.

INSERT TABLE 6 HERE

INSERT TABLE 7 HERE

Definition Rating

A Chi-square test for independence indicated a significant association between

definition classification and stream of study, χ²(4, n = 465) = 18.614, p < .05, Cramer's

V = .200. This Cramer's V effect size is small (i.e. between .01 and .30; Pallant, 2011).

Table 8 shows the counts and percentages of definition classifications across pre-school

and primary school pre-service teachers. It appears that in general those in a primary

school stream could provide a definition more aligned with the working definition used

in this study than those in a pre-school stream. No association was found between

definition classification and year of study, χ²(16, n = 463) = 25.099, p > .05, Cramer's V

= .116, or between definition classification and whether the participant had studied a

module/unit on inclusive education, χ²(4, n = 464) = 5.493, p > .05, Cramer's V = .109.

INSERT TABLE 8 HERE

To further examine these differences a two-way ANOVA was run between

Stream and Definition classification on each of the dependent variables. As can be seen

in Table 9, there is a main effect of definition classification on PA, F(4,438) = 3.647, p

< .05, and definition classification on NA, F(4,439) = 5.205, p < .05. Both the main

effects of definition classification on PA and NA remain significant after making a

Page 14 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Bonferonni adjustment (p < .01) due to non-equal variances. No significant differences

were found between mean scores of Total Inclusion Score, PA, TAPC and NA but it is

noted that those pre-service teachers that were able to provide a definition more aligned

with the working definition used in this study were higher on Total Inclusion Score, PA,

TAPC and NA.

INSERT TABLE 9 HERE

Multiple Regression

A multiple regression was calculated in order to consider all the independent variables

at once. The variables used were campus, gender, contact, stream, study year, age, unit

and experience. The regression made use of 12 predictors. Variables included in the

multiple regression accounted for 10% of the variance in Total Inclusion Score. An

ANOVA of the regression model suggests that it was statistically significant, F(12,428)

= 3.971, p < .0005. Two independent variables unique contributions to the regression

model were found to be statistically significant; if a participant had attended Campus

One or if they had studied a module or unit on inclusive education.

Discussion

Variables

Stream of study

No differences in attitudes towards inclusion were found between pre and primary

streams. These findings are supported by Ross-Hill (2009). Previous research has shown

that pre-school teachers are the most positive of pre-school, primary school and

secondary school teachers (Avramidis, et al., 2000). However based on the mean Total

Page 15 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Inclusion Score for this study, a general trend in this sample was that primary pre-

service teachers had more positive attitudes than pre-school pre-service teachers.

Potential reasons for the differences between this study and previous studies are

numerous, for example this could relate to the working definition used in this study,

differences in the scales used to measure attitudes, or more importantly a difference in

the way pre-service teachers in this study have been educated about inclusion compared

to participants in previous studies. As no statistically significant findings were found

across streams, it is necessary to consider the wider impact of the other variables

considered.

Age and gender

No differences in attitudes were found across genders, nor were any differences found

when considering gender and stream together. This is consistent with studies that have

shown no gender differences in attitudes towards inclusion (Loreman, et al., 2007;

Sharma, et al., 2003). After adjusting for the large number of analyses conducted, age

was not significant at the more stringent significance level.

Perceived experience with people with special education needs

This study failed to support the idea that people that have regular contact with friends or

family with disabilities are more positive towards inclusion (Burge, et al., 2000;

Loreman, et al., 2007; Subban & Sharma, 2006). This was unexpected and further

research is required to clarify why no significant differences were found within this

cohort.

Page 16 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Specialism

Only a limited number of studies have previously considered specialism in regards to

inclusive attitudes (Avramidis, et al., 2000). Previous literature indicates that those

studying mathematics or science courses would be significantly less positive than those

that studied other specialities. In this study, specialism was not found to be a significant

factor in participants’ attitudes towards inclusion for either primary or pre-school pre-

service teachers. As mentioned previously, specialism is a concept more relevant to

primary school and secondary streams where specialist classes are often taught (e.g.

physical education or art). Even then specialist classes are limited at primary school

compared to secondary school where curriculum becomes even more segmented (e.g.

history, English, literature, and mathematics).

Year of study

The variable 'year of study' was the only variable that was shown to have an interaction

effect with stream. It was found that postgraduate students were significantly different

from 1st year students and 4th year students, and 1st year students were significantly

different from both 2nd year students and 4th year students. Postgraduate students

enrolled in the pre-school stream were in fact the least positive compared to all year

levels of study in both the pre and primary school streams. In general, as year of study

increased, attitudes towards inclusion became more positive. Those in the primary

school sample became more positive across the years of study than those in the pre-

school sample. While this is consistent with work that shows pre-service attitudes

towards inclusion improve as year of study increases (Sosu, et al., 2010), it is contrary

to research that shows as years of experience increase, attitudes towards inclusion go

down (de Boer, et al., 2010). It is also inconsistent with that research that shows no

effect of length of experience (Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Ross-Hill, 2009). An

Page 17 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

explanation for this is that while year of study might be related to a higher length of

experience, in pre-service teachers, a drop in attitudes typically found in in-service

teachers is mitigated by both modules on inclusive education as well as lengthy periods

of non-teaching between placements. Another consideration here is that there is no

distinction made regarding the diversity of postgraduate students. Students studying

postgraduate units in education could previously have extensive background in

teaching, they could have immediately transferred from an undergraduate course, or

they could have been from other backgrounds with the intention of re-training as

teachers.

Differences across year of study were investigated on the individual components

found in the principal components analysis. Year of study was found to be a main effect

on Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA). Also an interaction between stream

and year of study was found to be significant on Training and Perceived Competence

(TAPC). It could be argued that as year of study increases pre-service teachers gain the

knowledge and experience to better understand the statements that make up the PA and

NA components. The effect size for PA (.058) was larger than the effect size for NA

(.031) possibly due to the fact that people find it easier to agree with statements that are

framed more positively, known as the Pollyanna principle (Armstrong & Hogg, 2001;

Matlin & Stang, 1978). However it was unexpected to find no significant difference on

the TAPC component. While it would be logical to assume that as pre-service teachers

go through their four years of training that they would feel that their training and

competence has increased, research has shown that both pre-service teachers and in-

service teachers are often concerned about their ability to include children with "special

education needs" even when they have training in the field (Bradshaw & Mundia,

2006).

Page 18 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Experience in a teaching role

No significant differences were found in attitudes between those that had teaching

experience and those that had not. It appears that it is the length of experience that is

significant in teacher attitudes, as shown by year of study, rather than the actual having

had experience or not.

Module on inclusive education

Differences in attitudes were found between those students that had studied a module on

inclusive education and those that had not. It appeared that those that studied a module

were more positive about inclusion based on Total Inclusion Score. These findings are

consistent with research on the positive impact of modules on inclusive education

(Forlin, et al., 2009; Sharma, et al., 2008; Subban & Sharma, 2006; Van Reusen, et al.,

2000). This emphasises the importance of modules on inclusive education in either

improving attitudes towards inclusion or maintaining already existing positive attitudes.

Across the whole sample only 47% of student teachers had studied a module on

inclusive education. While consideration must be made for those only just beginning

university (i.e. 1st year), this shows that there is scope for improvement in attitudes

through use of inclusive education modules. Another important consideration here is

that the questionnaire did not ask participants if they had studied a module on special

education. While there is a distinction between these two kinds of modules, participants

may have been unaware of this difference.

Analysing the impact of stream and module on the three components also

revealed some useful information. Having studied a module significantly impacted the

results of TAPC. This supports the idea that modules on inclusive education improve

pre-service teacher attitudes and assist with preparation for teaching diverse children

(Sharma, et al., 2008; Subban & Sharma, 2006). Specifically modules increase student

Page 19 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

teachers' beliefs that they have sufficient training and competence to teach children with

diverse needs.

Implications, Limitations and Future Research

Consistent with previous research (e.g. Forlin, et al., 2009), the mean scores of Total

Inclusion Score, PA, NA and TAPC were generally above 3.5, indicating that primary

school and pre-school pre-service teachers in this study were generally positive towards

inclusion. However, based on the findings of this research there are important

implications for pre-service teachers, particularly the effect of having studied a module

on attitudes towards inclusion. While year of study was a significant factor in this

research, this needs to be interpreted with caution, as it was not a significant predictor in

the multiple regression. In fact, the multiple regression, which included all the

independent variables as predictors except specialism, only accounted for 10% of the

variance in Total Inclusion Score. This implies that there are many more factors that are

impacting on pre-service teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Further research could

determine these 'other factors'.

Also noteworthy is the fact that primary school pre-service teachers were able to

provide definitions more aligned with the working definition used in this study than

those enrolled in pre-school streams. The ability to define inclusion was shown to

significantly impact the PA and NA components. These significance values along with

the increase in mean scores for those that were able to provide definitions more aligned

with the working definition used in this study show the importance of simply

understanding what inclusion is as having an underlying impact on attitudes towards

inclusion. However, given the quantitative focus of this study, findings based on

statistical interpretation of the participants qualitative responses should be considered

carefully.

Page 20 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

While these implications are important to consider, a few limitations have been

identified as well as potential avenues for future research. Firstly the TAISA was

adapted from a relatively new instrument, the TAIS. While both appear to be

psychometrically sound, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to its

relative recent introduction to the literature base. Secondly, as the questionnaires are

self-report, it is important to consider the impact of socially desirable responding.

Thirdly, some of the questions in the questionnaire are based on deficit, that is, they

focus on the difficulties students may experience and thus it is possible participants

were unduly influenced by the phrasing of some questions.

Another important point is that some areas of the sample were skewed. For

example very small numbers of those enrolled in specialisms, few male participants in

the pre-school sample and very few participants from Campus One and Three were

recruited. Results relating to specialism, gender and campus should be interpreted with

caution. Another important point is that all four campuses are located in one single state

in one country, making it difficult to generalise the findings overall.

The results and limitations of this study pave the way for some interesting future

research. Most importantly, further research should be done to investigate the impact of

modules on inclusion on the attitudes of pre-school and primary pre-service teachers

towards inclusion.

Conclusion

This study has investigated the impact of various variables on pre-service teachers

attitudes towards inclusion. In general it appears most pre-service teachers enrolled in

primary school and pre-school streams were positive towards inclusion which is

contrary to a recent review that showed teachers had a negative or neutral attitude

towards inclusion (de Boer, et al., 2010). It was found that year of study and having

Page 21 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

studied a module on inclusive education were significant factors on the Total Inclusion

Score as measured by the TAISA. No significant impact of stream was found across this

study. The importance of studying a module on inclusive education and having an

understanding of inclusive education are clearly beneficial to pre-service teachers as has

been exemplified in this study. Therefore, universities should consider the identified

positive benefits for good teaching practice that come from modules on inclusive

education for all pre-service students not just those choosing inclusive education as an

elective subject. This should facilitate a more inclusive approach from new graduates

who will consequently be somewhat more efficacious and skilled to teach across the

range of academic abilities inherent in a modern education system. This, after all, is the

goal, which should have inclusive mainstream practice at its core.

Acknowledgements: Thank you to [ANONYMISED]

Page 22 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

References

Armstrong, N., & Hogg, C. (2001). The Pollyanna Principle in French: A study of

variable lexi. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(11), 1757-1785. doi: 10.1016/S0378-

2166%2800%2900081-3

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers' attitudes towards the

inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277-293. doi: 10.1016/s0742-

051x(99)00062-1

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers attitudes towards integration/inclusion:

a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2),

129-147. doi: 10.1080/08856250210129056

Boyle, C. M. (2007). An analysis of the efficacy of a motor skills training programme

for young people with moderate learning difficulties. International Journal of

Special Education, 22(1), 11-24.

Boyle, C. (2012). Teachers make inclusion successful: positive perspectives on

inclusion. In C. Boyle & K. Topping (Eds.), What Works in Inclusion? (pp. 98-

109). Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill.

Boyle, C., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Norwich, B. (2012). The importance of

peer support for teaching staff when including children with special educational

needs. School Psychology International, 33(2), 167-184. doi:

10.1177/0143034311415783.

Boyle, C., Scriven, B., Durning, S., & Downes, C. (2011). Facilitating the learning of

all students: The ‘professional positive’ of inclusive practice in Australian

primary schools. Support for Learning, 26(2), 72-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

9604.2011.01480.x

Boyle, C., Topping, K., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards

inclusion in high schools. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,19(5),

527-542. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2013.827361

Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes to and concerns about inclusive

education: Bruneian inservice and preservice teachers. International Journal of

Special Education, 21(1), 35-41. Retrieved from

http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/

Page 23 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Burge, P., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Hutchinson, N., & Box, H. (2000). A quarter century of

inclusive education for children with intellectual disabilities in Ontario: Public

perceptions. Canadian Journal of Educational Administrationa and Policy, 87.

Retrieved from http://umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/

Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special

education on the attitudes of Australian preservice general educators towards

people with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(3), 65-79. Retrieved

from http://www.teqjournal.org/

Commonwealth Government. (1992). Disability Discrimination Act. Canberra: Author.

Commonwealth Government. (2010). Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (amended).

Canberra: Attorney-General's Department.

Conway, R. (2012). Inclusive schools in Australia: rhetoric and practice. In C. Boyle &

K. Topping (Eds.), What Works in Inclusion? (pp. 98-109). Berkshire: McGraw

Hill.

Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers' attitudinal

ratings of their students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education,

40(4), 230-238. doi: 10.1177/00224669070400040401

Costello, S., & Boyle, C. (2013). Pre-service Secondary Teachers' Attitudes towards

Inclusive Education. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4). doi:

10.14221/ajte.2013v38n4.8

Croll, P., & Moses, D. (2000). Ideologies and utopias: education professionals views of

inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(1), 1-12. doi:

10.1080/088562500361664

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555

de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Regular primary schoolteachers’

attitudes towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. International

Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331-353. doi:

10.1080/13603110903030089

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Forbes, F. (2007). Towards inclusion: an Australian perspective. Support for Learning,

22(2), 66-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00449.x

Page 24 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Forlin, C. (2006). Inclusive education in Australia ten years after Salamanca. European

Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(3), 265-277. doi: 10.1007/BF03173415

Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers:

Coping with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of

Disability, Development and Education, 55(3), 251-264. doi:

10.1080/10349120802268396

Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in

changing pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about

inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195 -

209. doi: 10.1080/13598660903050328

Forlin, C., & Sin, K. (2010). Developing support for inclusion: A professional learning

approach for teachers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling,

6(1), 7-26. Retrieved from

http://www.wholeschooling.net/Journal_of_Whole_Schooling/IJWSindex.html

Hastings, R., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of

children with special needs. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 87-94. doi:

10.1080/01443410303223

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and

crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5),

253-270. doi: 10.1037/h0023816

Interim Commitee for the Australian Schools Commission. (1973). Schools in

Australia: Report of the interim committee for the Australian Schools

Commission May 1973. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Karr, V. L. (2011). A life of qualtiy: Informing the UN Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(2), 67-82. doi:

10.1177/1044207310392785

\Lauchlan, F., & Fadda, R. (2012). The 'Italian model' of full inclusion: origins and

current directions. In C. Boyle & K. Topping (Eds.), What Works in Inclusion?

(pp. 31-40). Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill.

Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. (2004). Attitudes towards inclusion: The case

of Israeli and Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European

Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 171-190. doi:

10.1080/08856250410001678478

Page 25 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Loreman, T., Forlin, C., & Sharma, U. (2007). An international comparison of pre-

service teacher attitudes towards inclusive education. Disability Studies

Quarterly, 27(4). Retrieved from http://www.dsq-sds.org

Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. (1978). The Pollyanna Principle: Selectivity in Language,

Memory, and Thought Cambridge: Schenkman.

McCormack, O., & O’ Flaherty, J. (2010). An examination of pre-service teachers'

attitudes towards the inclusion of development education into Irish post-primary

schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(6), 1332-1339. doi:

10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.008

Michaud, K., & Scruggs, T. E. (2012). Inclusion in the United States: Theory and

Practice. In C. Boyle, & Topping, K. (Ed.), What works in inclusion? London:

McGraw Hill Education.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS Survival Manual (4th ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Pearce, M. (2009). The inclusive secondary school teacher In Australia. International

Journal of Whole Schooling, 5(2), 1-15. Retrieved from

www.wholeschooling.net/Journal_of_Whole_Schooling/IJWSindex.html

Pearson, V., Lo, E., Chui, E., & Wong, D. (2003). A Heart to Learn and Care? Teachers'

responses toward special needs children in mainstream schools in Hong Kong.

Disability & Society, 18(4), 489-508. doi: 10.1080/0968759032000081020

Peat, J. (2001). Health science research: A handbook of quanitative methods. Sydney:

Allen & Unwin.

Peters, S., Johnstone, C., & Ferguson, P. (2005). A Disability Rights in Education

Model for evaluating inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive

Education, 9(2), 139-160. doi: 10.1080/1360311042000320464

Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs

students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188-198. doi:

10.1111/1467-9604.00125

Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice

teachers' attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 37-41.

doi: 10.1080/10459880109603342

Sharma, U., Ee, J., & Desai, I. (2003). A comparison of Australian and Singaporean

pre-service teachers' attitudes and concerns about inclusive education. Teaching

and Learning, 24(2), 207-217. Retrieved from

http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/JTL

Page 26 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2007). What concerns pre-service teachers

about inclusive education: An international viewpoint? Journal of Educational

Policy, 4(2), 95-114. doi: 10.2753/CED1061-1932400405

Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service

teachers' attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about

persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773 - 785. Retrieved from

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/09687599.html

Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concerns of pre-service

teachers regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools in

Pune, India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 319-331. doi:

10.1080/13598660903050328

Sosu, E. M., Mtika, P., & Colucci-Gray, L. (2010). Does initial teacher education make

a difference? The impact of teacher preparation on student teachers’ attitudes

towards educational inclusion. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(4), 389-

405. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2010.513847

Spandagou, I., Evans, D., & Little, C. (2008). Primary education preservice teachers’

attitudes on inclusion and perceptions on preparedness to respond to classroom

diversity. Paper presented at the AARE 2008 International education research

conference, Brisbane.

Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2006). Primary school teachers' perceptions of inclusive

education in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Special Education,

21(1), 42-52. Retrieved from

http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/

The National Archives. (1980). Education Act 1980, from

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/20

Topping, K. (2012). Conceptions of inclusion: widening ideas. In C. Boyle & K.

Topping (Eds.), What Works in Inclusion? Berkshire: Open University Press.

UNESCO. (1994). The UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on

Special Needs Education. Salamanca, Spain: United Nations.

Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2000). High school teacher attitudes

toward inclusion. The High School Journal, 84(2), 7-21.

Varcoe, L., & Boyle, C. (2013). Primary Pre-Service Teachers' Attitudes towards

Inclusive Education. Educational Psychology, 10th May. doi:

10.1080/01443410.2013.785061

Page 27 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Warnock, M. (1978). Special Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry

into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People. London: H. M.

Stationary Off.

Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software].

State College, PA: Ed and Psych Associates.

Wu, C. C., & Komesaroff, L. (2007). An emperor with no clothes? Inclusive education

in victoria. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 9. doi:

10.1080/10300110701704952

Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special

education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189-204. doi:

10.1080/09362830903231986

Zoniou-Sideri, A., & Vlachou, A. (2006). Greek teachers' belief systems about

disability and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education,

10(4-5), 379-394. doi: 10.1080/13603110500430690

Page 28 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 1. Pre-service teacher demographics by sample size and percentage

Preschool Primary Total Variable n % n % n % Gender Male 2 3% 61 97% 63 100% Female 134 33% 268 67% 402 100% Age in years <=23 68 23% 229 77% 297 100% >=24 59 41% 85 59% 144 100% Year of enrolled study 1st year 48 27% 133 73% 181 100% 2nd year 15 38% 25 63% 40 100% 3rd year 15 17% 72 83% 87 100% 4th year 34 46% 40 54% 74 100% Postgraduate 24 30% 57 70% 81 100% Completed a unit in inclusion Yes 80 36% 141 64% 221 100% No 56 23% 187 77% 243 100% Campus location Campus One 0 0% 5 100% 5 100% Campus Two 0 0% 167 100% 167 100% Campus Three 0 - 0 - 0 - Campus Four 136 46% 157 54% 293 100% Contact Yes 41 34% 80 66% 121 100% No 94 27% 248 73% 342 100% Specialism None 131 49% 138 51% 269 100% Mathematics 0 0% 4 100% 4 100% Social Sciences 1 3% 39 98% 40 100% Science 0 0% 5 100% 5 100% Art 0 0% 19 100% 19 100% SOSE 0 0% 16 100% 16 100% Business 0 0% 2 100% 2 100% Physical Education 1 1% 74 99% 75 100% LOTE 0 0% 3 100% 3 100% Music 0 0% 5 100% 5 100% Other 2 8% 24 92% 26 100% Experience in teaching role Yes 88 25% 264 75% 352 100% No 47 42% 65 58% 112 100% Total Sample 136 29% 329 71% 465 100% Note: Sample sizes do not consistently total the overall sample size of 465 due to missing participant data across some areas of demographic information.

Page 29 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 2. Two-Way ANOVA: Stream and Each Demographic IV Effect on Total Inclusion

Score

Stream Sig. Variable Sig. Interaction

Variable F p pη² F p pη² F P pη²

Campus 0.198 .657 .000 1.697 .184 .008 . . .

Gender 1.022 .313 .002 0.656 .418 .001 1.104 .294 .003

Family/Friend 0.234 .629 .001 1.550 .214 .004 1.244 .265 .003

Year of Study 0.086 .770 .000 3.627 .006* .033 5.501 .000* .049

Specialism 1.557 .213 .004 1.230 .270 .028 0.340 .797 .002

Age 0.529 .467 .001 6.639 .010* .015 2.524 .113 .006

Module 0.388 .533 .001 20.830 .000* .045 0.147 .701 .000

Experience 0.020 .887 .000 1.420 .234 .003 0.946 .331 .002

Note: * indicates significance at p < .05., Bold indicates significance at p < .0063

Page 30 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 3. Mean for Total Inclusion Score between Stream and Module

Stream Studied a Module n Mean

Pre-School Yes 77 4.072

No 52 3.897

Primary Yes 136 4.114

No 177 3.907

Page 31 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 4. Mean for Total Inclusion Score between Stream and Current Year of

Study

Stream Current Year of Study n Mean

Pre-School (n = 129) 1st Year 45 3.912

2nd Year 15 3.946

3rd Year 13 4.242

4th Year 33 4.172

Postgraduate 23 3.834

Primary School (n = 312) 1st Year 124 3.937

2nd Year 25 3.901

3rd Year 68 3.967

4th Year 40 4.033

Postgraduate 55 4.200

Page 32 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 5. Tukey's HSD for Year of Study on Total Inclusion Score

Base /Comparison 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Postgraduate

1st Year - MD: -0.013

SE: 0.069 Sig: .000

MD: 0.081

SE: 0.053 Sig.: .549

MD: 0.165

SE: 0.055 Sig.: .023

MD: 0.162

SE: 0.054 Sig.: .023

2nd Year MD: 0.013

SE: 0.069 Sig.: .000

- MD: 0.093

SE: 0.076 Sig.: .732

MD: 0.178

SE: 0.077 Sig.: .143

MD: 0.174

SE: 0.076 Sig.: 0.15

3rd Year MD: -0.081

SE: 0.053 Sig.: .549

MD: -0.093

SE: 0.076 Sig.: .732

- MD: 0.085

SE: 0.063 Sig. .665

MD: 0.081

SE: 0.062 Sig. .688

4th Year MD: -0.165

SE: 0.055 Sig.: .023

MD: -0.178

SE: 0.077 Sig.: .143

MD: -0.085

SE: 0.063 Sig. .665

- MD: -0.004

SE: 0.064 Sig.: .000

Postgraduate MD: -0.162

SE: 0.054 Sig.: .023

MD: -0.174

SE: 0.076 Sig.: 0.15

MD: -0.081

SE: 0.062 Sig. .688

MD: 0.004

SE: 0.064 Sig.: .000

-

Note: Bold indicates significance at p < .05, MD = Mean Difference, SE = Standard Error, Sig. =

Significance

Page 33 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 6. Two-Way ANOVA of Stream and Module on Components.

Stream Module Interaction

Component F p pη² F p pη² F p pη²

PA 3.208 .074 .007 13.572 .000* .030 0.170 .680 .000

TAPC 1.092 .297 .002 8.534 .004* .019 0.492 .483 .001

NA 0.261 .610 .001 11.583 .001* .025 0.026 .871 .000


PA = Positive Affect, TAPC = Training and Perceived Competence, NA =

Negative Affect

Page 34 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 7. Two-Way ANOVA of Stream and Year of Study on Components.

Stream Year of Study Interaction

Component F p pη² F p pη² F p pη²

PA 0.790 .375 .002 6.686 .000* .058 2.653 .033* .024

TAPC 2.936 .087 .007 .381 .822 .003 4.527 .001* .039

NA 0.106 .744 .000 3.480 .008* .031 3.069 .016* .027


PA = Positive Affect, TAPC = Training and Perceived Competence, NA =

Negative Affect

Page 35 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 8. Count and Percentages of Definition Ratings.

Definition

None Neither Integration Basic Advanced

Pre-School Count 55 23 7 44 7

% Stream 40.40% 16.90% 5.10% 32.40% 5.10%

% Total 11.80% 4.90% 1.50% 9.50% 1.50%

Primary Count 82 41 14 151 41

% Stream 24.90% 12.50% 4.30% 45.90% 12.50%

% Total 17.60% 8.80% 3.00% 32.50% 8.80%

Page 36 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Table 9. Two-Way ANOVA: Stream and Definition on each Dependent Variable

Stream Sig. Definition Sig. Interaction

F p pη² F p pη² F P pη²

TIS 0.005 .945 .000 2.244 .064 .020 0.602 .662 .006

PA 0.097 .755 .000 3.647 .006* .032 0.340 .851 .003

TAPC 0.190 .663 .000 0.569 .686 .005 0.762 .550 .007

NA 0.159 .690 .000 5.205 .000* .045 0.200 .938 .002

Note: * indicates significance at p < .05., Bold indicates significance at p < .01, PA =

Positive Affect, TAPC = Training and Perceived Competence, NA = Negative Affect

Page 37 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

Appendix A

The Teachers' Attitudes Towards Inclusion Scale Adjusted

Please circle the appropriate item

I. Please indicate your gender:

Male Female

II. Does a member of your family or a friend with whom you have regular contact with have additional support needs?

Yes No

III. Please select the course that you are studying:

____________________________________________________________________

IV. What is your current year of study? 1 2 3 4 Post Grad

V. What is your specialism/proposed specialism (e.g. physical education, psychology) __________________________________________________________

VI. Please indicate your age: ______________

VII. Have you studied a module or unit on inclusive education?

YES NO

VIII. Have you experience of working in a school in some form of teaching support role?

YES NO

Page 38 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

FOR ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER YOU DISAGREE OR AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT BY SELECTING A

SCORE TO REPRESENT YOUR VIEW (Strongly Agree) 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Strongly Disagree)

1. Students with additional support needs should be educated in a mainstream school

2. Educating children with additional support needs in mainstream classes has a detrimental effect on the other children in the class.

3. I feel that my teacher-training programme is preparing me adequately for working with all children irrespective of disability.

4. I feel competent to work with students who have varying levels of difficulties.

5. Students with additional support needs have the social skills required to behave appropriately in the classroom.

6. The presence of students with additional support needs in my mainstream class will have only a minimal affect upon my implementation of the standard curriculum.

7. Including children with additional support needs in the classroom can adversely effect the learning environment of the class.

8. A lot of the learning strategies employed in the classroom are applicable to all students not just those with additional support needs.

9. Some children have difficulties that mean that they should not be educated in

mainstream schools.

10. I will be able to make a positive educational difference to students with additional support needs in my classroom.

11. Student peers will reject students with additional support

12. Students performing at a level more than three years below their chronological age should still be educated in mainstream classes.

13. Children with Social and Emotional Behavioural Difficulties should be educated in the mainstream class only if there is sufficient support in place for the class teacher.

14. It is not beneficial for children with additional support needs to be educated in mainstream schools.

15. It is my job, as a teacher, to provide alternative materials for students who have additional support needs (e.g. printed sheets of work from the whiteboard).

Page 39 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

16. The daily or weekly formative assignments that are given to students to assess the class should be adapted for children with additional support needs.

17. The teacher should usually attempt to ensure that all the children in the class, irrespective of levels of difficulty or ability, are able to participate in the class as much as is possible.

18. With appropriate support, I could teach all students (including additional support needs) in the same class.

19. A teacher, If given what are regarded to be appropriate resources, could teach the vast majority of children with additional support needs.

20. Children with additional support needs learn best when grouped with others with similar needs.

21. I do not support the policy of inclusion no matter how much extra support the teacher is given in the class

PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR DEFINITION OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION:

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Page 40 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

1

REVIEWER COMMENTS AUTHOR RESPONSE

Reviewer: 1

Literature and discussion: The discussion

of specialism seems tangential, so perhaps

it could be reduced. Some material on

secondary education could also be

removed.

The authors acknowledge this paragraph is not

concise and thus have rewritten the paragraph to

be more succinct and relevant.

ORIGINAL:

Specialism refers to the subject area that a

teacher may focus on. This is a concept that is

less relevant to those that focus on pre-

school/kindergarten teaching and more relevant

to those that teach in primary schools and

secondary schools where students are exposed

to specialist curriculum areas including, but not

limited to, physical education, history, art,

literature. Given this, are there differences

between those that study specialisms (i.e.

primary stream) and those that don't (i.e. pre-

school stream)? It has been found that those

studying science courses are less positive

towards inclusion than those that study

humanities (Avramidis, et al., 2000). The

authors argue that this is because science

teachers are more focused on academic

Page 41 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

2

performance. However, they also admit that

little research is available to back up this claim.

CHANGED:

Specialism refers to the subject area that a

teacher may focus on. In primary school

students are exposed to specialist curriculum

areas including, but not limited to, physical

education, art and music. Given this, are there

differences between those that study specialisms

(i.e. primary stream) and those that do not (i.e.

pre-school stream)? Avramidis et al. (2000)

argue that those that study science courses are

more focused on academic performance and

thus less positive towards inclusion, whereas

those that study humanities are more positive.

Method (a): The instrument indicates that

the questions are relevant for school

education and a focus on deficit, so this

should be addressed in limitations

Although the authors acknowledge the example

question used focuses on "difficulties", not

every question focuses on deficit. Regardless,

this has been addressed in the limitations as the

authors acknowledge that the phrasing of

questions can influence respondents.

ADDITION IN LIMITATIONS:

Page 42 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

3

Thirdly, some of the questions in the

questionnaire are based on deficit, that is, they

focus on the difficulties students may

experience and thus it is possible participants

were unduly influenced by the phrasing of some

questions.

Method (b): Comparison of attitudes is

made against a working definition derived

from literature on school education and

deficit-based constructions of diversity.

More discussion of how comparison was

made would illuminate decision-making.

The authors acknowledge that there was a lack

of detail in explaining how this process was

completed. This section has been updated and

the following explanation added.

To qualify as ‘advanced’ the definition needed

to identify factors such as modifying curriculum

to suit needs of students, valuing all students,

ideas about equality and justice, and avoiding

limiting the definition to individual groups such

as those that have physical disabilities. A

definition was classified as ‘basic’ if it failed to

mention processes such as changes in the

education environment, or make no mention of

the values and inclusionary practices that

underlie the practice of inclusion. Finally

definitions were classified as ‘integration’ if it

did not identify the need of modifying the

environment to the child or limited inclusion to

Page 43 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

4

a specific group of children rather than all

children. If the definition discussed something

that was neither classifiable as inclusion or

integration then it was to be scored as a 'one'

and if no definition was given at all it was

coded as a 'zero'.

Discussion: Stream of enrolment

discussion focuses on a non-significant

finding against a working school-based

definition. Reduce or discuss possible

factors such as differences in teacher

preparation related to varying

constructions of diversity and inclusion

relevant to the context of teaching work in

the sectors.

The initial discussion of Stream of Study has

been edited to discuss potential factors for the

non-significant results.

ADDITION:

Potential reasons for the differences between

this study and previous studies are numerous,

for example this could relate to the working

definition used in this study, differences in the

scales used to measure attitudes, or more

importantly a difference in the way pre-service

teachers in this study have been educated about

inclusion compared to participants in previous

studies.

Renaming "better definitions" as "more

advanced" does not solve the concern so

perhaps you meant definitions more

aligned with the working definition?

The authors thank the reviewer for this

suggestion and have made appropriate changes,

particularly in the section under the heading

"Definition Rating"

Page 44 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

5

For example:

It appears that in general those in a primary

school stream could provide a definition more

aligned with the working definition used in this

study than those in a pre-school stream

OR

Also noteworthy is the fact that primary school

pre-service teachers were able to provide

definitions more aligned with the working

definition used in this study than those enrolled

in pre-school streams.

Reviewer: 2

Consistent use of ‘special educational

needs’ is required if this term is to be used

(Please see Booth & Ainscow, for

example, for a critique of this term).

Due to changes relevant to another comment by

the reviewer, the authors believe this comment

has been satisfactorily addressed

In exploring the history of Inclusive

Education, the absence of any mention of

the UNCRPD seems surprising. I

recommend adding.

The authors thank the reviewers for pointing

this out and we have included the following

paragraph at the end of the short history of

inclusive education section.

Additional paragraph:

Wider international legislation such as the

Page 45 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

6

United Nations Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) has

ensured that self-determination and quality of

life for all people with additional support needs

has become a universal right (Karr, 2011), not

just in the education sphere.

Editing is still required in a number of

places. Please carefully proof read.

The manuscript has been proof read and edited

where appropriate.

While many improvements have been

made in this regard, it is essential to

consistently avoid dehumanising people

with ‘SEN’. Please revise the subheadings

to ensure that where a person/people are

being referred to this isn’t replaced with

SEN.

The heading referred to has been changed from

"Perceived experience with special education

needs" to "Perceived experience with people

with special education needs"

Each use of the term "special education needs"

has been considered, and more appropriate

terminology has been used where necessary.

However, in some instances the term remains so

as not to misrepresent previous literature which

used this term as a factor in their own study.

In reporting reliability of the TAISA it

needs to be made clear that this is

Cronbach’s Alpha for the amended scale,

following the original – at present this is

ambiguous.

The authors thank the reviewer for pointing this

out. It did seem ambiguous and has been

rewritten to reflect the adjusted scale reliability.

ORIGINAL:

The original scale was found to be reliable with

Page 46 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

7

a Cronbach's Alpha of .889 (Boyle, et al., 2013).

For the sample of 465 participants the scale was

found to have acceptable reliability with a

Cronbach's Alpha of .74 (Cronbach, 1951).

CHANGED:

The original scale was found to be reliable with

a Cronbach's Alpha of .889 (Boyle, et al., 2013).

For the sample of 465 participants the adjusted

scale was found to have acceptable reliability

with a Cronbach's Alpha of .74 (Cronbach,

1951).

The provision of the definition used for

coding ‘advanced understanding of

inclusion’ is helpful. The definitions used

for coding ‘integration’ and ‘basic

understanding of inclusion’ are also

needed.

Reviewer One also had concerns regarding the

explanation of definitions. This has been

expanded on

ADDITION

To qualify as advanced the definition needed to

identify factors such as modifying curriculum to

suit needs of students, valuing all students, ideas

about equality and justice, and avoiding limiting

the definition to individual groups such as those

that have physical disabilities. A definition was

classified as basic if it failed to mention

processes such as changes in the education

Page 47 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

8

environment, or make no mention of the values

and inclusionary practices that underlie the

practice of inclusion. Finally definitions were be

classified as integration if it did not identify the

need of modifying the environment to the child

or limited inclusion to a specific group of

children rather than all children. If the definition

discussed something that was neither

classifiable as inclusion or integration then it

was to be scored as a 'one' and if no definition

was given at all it was coded as a 'zero'.

Regarding PCA, it is insufficient to state

‘statistical methods were used’. Please

elaborate.

ORIGINAL:

Using statistical methods (Horn & Cattell, 1966;

Watkins, 2000) it was determined that three

components were to be retained. This three

component solution explained a cumulative

variance of 40.27%.

CHANGED:

Using software for calculating Parallel Analysis

(Watkins, 2000) and the scree plot (Catell,

1966) it was determined that three components

were to be retained. Varimax rotation was used

in this PCA as it is the most frequently used

Page 48 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review O

nly

9

orthogonal rotation (Pallant, 2011). This three

component solution explained a cumulative

variance of 40.27%. By looking at the rotated

component matrix it is possible to see that four

items loaded onto two components, suggesting

that Thurstone's (1947) simple structure was not

entirely achieved. However as there was no

cross loadings between component two and

component three they appear to be the most

unique.

Which version of SPSS was used? ORIGINAL:

SPSS was used for data input and analysis.

CHANGED:

The Statistical Package for Social Scientists,

version 17 (SPSS V17) was used for data input

and analysis.

Page 49 of 49



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Documents

Attitudes of pre-school and primary school pre-service teachers towards inclusive education